Dan Joseph of MRC TV, known for his “man on the street” interviews, has done yet another. This time, he interviewed those protesting Hobby Lobby’s case against the HHS contraceptive mandate. The mandate would require employers – despite their religious objections – to cover abortifacient drugs in employees’ insurance plans, or pay heavy penalties.

Do not post private personal information about yourself or others.(ie addresses, phone #s)

Violations will be deleted and you may be banned. Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.

Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.

Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls
to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They
reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.

To the people who say that Hobby Lobby is imposing their morality upon their employees…. the ones who insist that the employer must be forced to comply because some of the employees might desire the benefit:

In Madison, a local surgical center (co-owned by the state university hospital) decided to sell late-term abortion services. This violated the conscience and ethics of many doctors and nurses on the surgical staff. A cardiac surgeon resigned in protest before the policy was activated. Several doctors threatened to resign after the program was put into place. The nurses’ union voted to have no involvement with abortions (forcing to the surgical center to seek an exemption from the state legislature to allow non-union midwives to fill in for skilled surgical nurses).

Eventually public protest, internal rebellion, and pressure from the state legislature caused the surgical center to drop its plans for late-term abortions.

But in relation to the Hobby Lobby case — should the courts have forced the surgery center to abandon their business strategy because some employees didn’t like it? Should the court force Hobby Lobby to pay for abortifacients because some employees might want them?

I say that there is insanity to that line of thinking.

It is the duty of the owners to set the policies and strategies of their company. It is the right of employees to leave a job that is no longer a good fit. If the employer wants to take a stand that is morally controversial — firmly pro-life or firmly pro-abortion — then the employer has to live with the consequences regarding their relationships with employees, customers, and the community.

The court’s job is to protect the duty of the company’s owners to run themselves as well as they can.

Good point Del, he didn’t just do average people but people putting themselves out there publicly. Sadly many of them have no idea that the first law on the United States books plainly states corporations are people: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/1. They would be the first to say Roe v. Wade is settled law, despite the fact the Supreme Court was routinely treating all associations of people as having equivalent rights, including corporations, for 150 years before Roe v. Wade. Sigh…

Did Dan actually come across any individuals who work for Hobby Lobby? I missed that part…. That Taliban bit at the end was comic relief for a Friday afternoon.

The bottom line is that at the end of the day, the almighty government will have a very hard time to force a private company to adhere to that mandate. The only thing that can actually be done, is the imposition of fines. Hobby Lobby pays a great share to the federal coffers. The big brother will weigh this I am sure.

Hobby Lobby has the upper hand and here’s hoping they stand their ground.

At 3:30, the likeness to the hippie draft conscientious objectors is money. With a draft, the govt says go to war to kill, but some have this one way out of the mandate: conscientious objection. Back in the day, those objecting included Quakers, but the majority were likely less-religious or non-religious war opposers. Hippies.
Now, the govt mandates all businesses to be party to killing. The hippies demand that there be no conscientious-objector exception. In the present case, Hobby Lobby is genuinely confounded by genuine religious tenets – many of us have recognized this about Hobby Lobby since before Obamacare was just a twinkle in Obama’s eye.

The interviews would be better if longer snippets were available. The context could be seen better. But the cult-thinking is evident: these protesters are morally and intellectually superior to the rest of us; those of us who do not agree with them, regardless of issue, are painted with the same brush: Taliban-style ignorant racist women-hating oppressors.
These progressives, believing they are superior, just look like tools spouting the same programming. The answer to everything is: evil Christian knuckle-dragging Taliban.
don’t believe in man-made global warming? evil Christian knuckle-dragging Taliban.
Don’t believe in an open border with Mexico? evil Christian knuckle-dragging Taliban.
Don’t believe in taxpayer-funded abortion up through the 40th week? evil Christian knuckle-dragging Taliban.
Cult thinking. Cults work by a specific handful of social/intellectual mechanisms. One is having a good enemy – whenever an issue comes up that would indicate the flaw in the cult-thinking, the cult distracts you by moving your attention to the supposed enemy.
Birth control pills are not healthcare, and abortion is not healthcare. Neither prevents a disease or cures a disease. It is that easy to destroy any arguments for healthcare coverage of birth control pills or abortifacients.
But you cannot take a cult-member liberal to engage in a review of this argument because the evil Christian knuckle-dragging Taliban answer has been pre-programmed into their thought structure.

I just don’t get it. WHO doesn’t know that HL is a CHRISTIAN company ? (That’s why they’re not open on Sunday). You don’t have to be a Christian to work there, but if you do go to work there, WHY would you think HL should pay for your abortifacient BC (Their insurance covers ALL kinds of BC, not just those ) or your abortion ? If you want those things , go work somewhere else, or don’t “expect” them to pay for it.

Hobby Lobby is a Christian company? Can you tell me about its conversion experience? Will Hobby Lobby get into heaven?

Of course not – the Greens formed a company to take advantage of corporate legal status. They can certainly have religious beliefs, but not a company. To essentially ask the courts to say that a company has individual rights is a dangerous path – which is why you didn’t see any of the usual corporate lobbying organizations stepping in on this (anybody seen anything from the US chamber of commerce? Nope).

If the Greens want to sign away their corporate rights – limited liability, tax treatment – then I can see the case. Otherwise, this is bad news. I could see the supremes giving a narrow win to Hobby Lobby (which wouldn’t affect other businesses) – but I hope they simply throw it out.

You and others seem to be suggesting that anybody who goes and works there sets aside their own rights. If an organization is made up of a bunch of people, why does only the founders rights matter?

Regardless, in part – yes (though I wouldn’t say ‘human rights’). When an individual does start a business and form a company, the company has different rules than an individual. If you’d like to treat them as equal from top to bottom, you can – but the US economic system would probably collapse. The different treatments allows for a lot of flexibility.

“What “rights” do the employees of HL set aside? The “right” to free bc and sterilization? That’s crazy. ”

I agree that speaking of the coverage of hormonal contraceptives (unless they are used to treat a medical issue) as a “right” is rather nonsensical. I don’t think people have the right to have access to cheap/affordable non-essential medications. It’s a good idea that they have access to such things, but I don’t understand why we can’t discuss it without accusing the other side of wanting to take away rights.

I still think that universal healthcare would solve a lot of these issues, at least business owners wouldn’t feel forced to subsidize things they think of as evil.

Ex – the government will not force the hand of a privately owned corporation. At least that’s what I think America stands for. SCOTUS will realize its bad precedent that will have far-reaching consequences for this nation if set.

It does not matter that the US Chamber of Commerce or other corporations support HL. Wimps they are. HL is standing up and making a statement that perhaps the wimps will eventually understand. This narrow victory, as you say, even if not published as precedent – would soon become one as all the wimps would follow suit.

I’m not sure I understand your rambling on this – I think you are for Hobby Lobby – but I actually agree that I don’t think SCOTUS or the business world will want to see companies treated as private individuals as it would set bad precedent. I think you are speaking the other way on it and are cheering for an activist ruling on this one. Clarify if you’d like.

Ex – you may have a better vocabulary than this immigrant, I grant you that. And you may even be able to put people down just like you have, throwing in inconspicous (you think) little insults. Whatever floats your boat.

The bottom line is that Hobby Lobby may win this one and when the Green Family does, I will rub it in and call you a “political-analyst wannabe” for as long as Jill keeps her blog running……

If HL win this then the opening of pandora’s box will be wide.
There would be a deluge of claims by employers who wish to refuse to cover any type of medical care on religious grounds, such as blood transfusions and organ transplants. Or any health care at all if they are christian scientists. Anti-vaxxers?
They could even seek religious exemptions to unrelated laws such as nondiscrimination clauses or the minimum wage.
This would bring about a myriad of employers’ claims for exemptions on any and every basis, resulting in a plethora of frivolous litigation.
Maybe atheists could sue for their employees to not donate any of their wages to churches?

I understand your concern about this Reality but honestly I don’t think the pandora’s box will be opened as wide as you predict. This fight is only related to the opposition to the HHS contraceptive mandate and the SCOTUS is treating it as such. So this would be a stretch to imagine the precedent extend where you think it may. When I talked about the wimps following suit I meant in regard to this non-medical mandate only and that is my actual wish. Your concern may not play out.

I think history indicates that your confidence may be a little misplaced Thomas R.
If the owners of HL can deny their employees health cover which includes contraception then I can well imagine there would be those who would seek to deny their employees health cover which includes blood transfusions or organ transplants. Not much of a stretch at all. And what about christian scientists? Would they demand the right to exclude health cover which includes actual medical care?

Reality: I have confidence in good vs. evil. Take it to mean whatever you may…
I think when you referred to actual medical care in your last sentence, you have done it without consideration to the fact that contraception is not an actual medical care. I mentioned this in the April 1, 2014 at 9:32 am comment. Oh I know some will jump in and argue “the other” usage of contraception. The non-medical/lifestyle usage over-rules that “other usage” ten-fold Sir because contraception is mainly used as birth control. So Hobby Lobby’s objection remains valid.

“contraception is not an actual medical care. – you are incorrect. Given the range of potential mental and physical risks an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy may cause, it is medical care.”

You crack me up. So what you’re arguing is that even though a woman may not experience any symptoms of the alleged mental/physical risks, she is to take contraception just in case. HAHA. You are in support of a “medical” establishment that would treat IMAGINABLE “physical” conditions with no concrete evidence of such. We already have that – its called psychiatry and in case you don’t realize – are you saying that such woman qualifies for psychotropics?

You crack me up – I thought it was a little late for that actually :-)

It is known that pregnancy carries risks. Some are known before pregnancy emerges, others as a pregnancy proceeds. If a woman has not chosen to undertake a pregnancy and delivery then there is no reason for her to be forced to face either known or potential risks.

If I lived my live based on potential risks I’d be locked up in my closet, shaking in my boots and not proceeding with anything that defines my existence. Same applies to you and every single human being on this planet.

You are advocating for taking living out of life. Does that makes sense????

Potential risks are a part of life, you know that. Some people do live their lives in a closet, most of us face the risks and get on with life.
I trust you look before crossing the road.
Hopefully you wear a seatbelt when you climb into a motor vehicle.
Are you careful not to eat food which has gone bad?

I’m advocating for longevity, so that we can live life.

0 likes

Who Is Jill Stanek?

Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.